Dominant Set Clustering and Pooling for Multi-View 3D Object Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
View based strategies for 3D object recognition have proven to be very successful. The state-of-the-art methods now achieve over 90% correct category level recognition performance on appearance images. We improve upon these methods by introducing a view clustering and pooling layer based on dominant sets. The key idea is to pool information from views which are similar and thus belong to the same cluster. The pooled feature vectors are then fed as inputs to the same layer, in a recurrent fashion. This recurrent clustering and pooling module, when inserted in an off-the-shelf pretrained CNN, boosts performance for multi-view 3D object recognition, achieving a new state of the art test set recognition accuracy of 93.8% on the ModelNet 40 database. We also explore a fast approximate learning strategy for our cluster-pooling CNN, which, while sacrificing end-to-end learning, greatly improves its training efficiency with only a slight reduction of recognition accuracy to 93.3%. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/fate3439/dscnn.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".